The framing of judgement by counter: how appraisal analysis of six sentencing remarks provides an insight into judges’ sentencing practices

Abstract

Studies on sentencing in England and Wales are dominated by normative studies  prescribing how judges should sentence. Few examine how judges actually sentence.  This article provides an insight into the empirical reality of judges’ sentencing practices  by examining how judges use counter to frame their judgement of offenders  and their behaviour in six sentencing remarks. The six sentencing remarks were  selected to ensure that variations in sentencing decisions of the six cases were, at  least to a large extent, subject to judicial discretion. It finds that the statutory point  exercises a binding effect on judicial sentencing despite judges having the discretion  to disregard the starting point. The finding leads to the further inference that judges  might possibly perceive the Court of Appeal and the public as two important audiences  for their sentencing remarks.